Text Size

-

+

reset

Most states have primary texting laws, which means an officer can pull over a texting driver even if no other road violation is apparent. But other laws are secondary, like in Virginia, where drivers must be committing another offense before they can be pulled over and reprimanded for texting.

That concerns Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Vice President Jackie Gillan.

“We want to see primary enforcement,” Gillan said, applauding the inclusion of grants for states that ban texting in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Commerce panel. She said states with secondary laws or those that have proven resistant to texting bans are what may eventually precipitate federal legislation. “We do have a lot of momentum in the state legislatures. But how do you get those last states to step up to the plate and get that done?”

By not dealing exclusively with texting, McCarthy’s bill is a subtle nod to the progress states have made in banning drivers from mashing their keypads. Even so, not everyone agrees texting bans are effective. Russ Rader, of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said his organization’s research has not discovered a link between either texting or handheld bans and reductions in crashes. Though texting bans are relatively new, Rader said he has seen no reason to think the difficult-to-enforce laws will have an eventual impact on crashes.

“This has been much faster than primary seat belt laws. In contrast to seat belt laws, research shows there are no safety benefits from texting bans,” Rader said. “We don’t know for sure why, and we were surprised by the findings of the studies.”

Rader also said distracted driving encompasses more than just electronic devices, evidence backed by a recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report. That survey found that while 18 percent of all drivers and 49 percent of drivers aged 21 to 24 reported having sent or received text messages, behaviors like conversing with passengers or fiddling with the car radio are more pervasive.

That’s not a reason to oppose texting bans, AAA’s Green said.

“The pioneering states that enacted child safety seat, seat belt and drunk-driving laws in past decades did not see crash totals plummet in the first months after the laws took effect,” Green said. “Yet these safety measures have since been widely adopted across the country and gone on to save thousands of lives.”

You're the idiot, Chalons. The police have the right to pull over a driver who's swerving or not keeping his or her eyes on the road upon passing an officer. Then, you simply look at the time the text was sent, say thirty seconds before being pulled over, and it's an open and shut case. Because you don't believe it should be enforced hardly makes it unenforcible.

Apples and oranges and embarrassingly comedic analogies. Laws against texting while driving will save lives. Like any law, not everybody will adhere to it. Speed limits deter some from speeding. They deter some from driving at an unreasonable speed. Some are not deterred whatsoever. So should we permit convicted violent felons from possessing guns under the logic, 'they'll do it anyway?'

Apples and oranges and embarrassingly comedic analogies. Laws against texting while driving will save lives. Like any law, not everybody will adhere to it. Speed limits deter some from speeding. They deter some from driving at an unreasonable speed. Some are not deterred whatsoever. So should we permit convicted violent felons from possessing guns under the logic, 'they'll do it anyway?'

John, you are right apples and oranges.

Perhaps I am not on board with all you need is one more law or regulation to stop this, maybe, just maybe a little common sense and social dissuasion ought to enter the equation.

If we all ate brocolli, it would save lives and we would all be healthy, why not a regulation?

Broccoli lacks essential fats we need for a variety of health reasons. Thus, you're wrong there. This issue particularly hits home to me because a student I had twice in class was texting on her way to work and will need round the clock care the rest of her life. She was nineteen, beautiful and had the rest of her life to look forward to. Of course I can't say a law at the time would have deterred her. But even if it deters one person at risk of ending up like her it is worth it to me. I'm not the regulation freak you've caricatured by the way. Read the gambling article and the posts I wrote. I favor all forms of legalized gambling, legalized prostitution and legalization of certain drugs, both recreational and performance enhancing. I'm with you by the way that regulating what people can and can't eat is over the top. However, the immediate risk texting and driving poses to others makes for the apples and oranges comparison to regulating what we can and can't eat.

"Another unenforcable law that is somehow supposed to compensate for the abandonment of common sense.

Idiots."

Libertarians are naive to the the absurd, just like the communists. They believe that if all laws are abolished and people will apply "common sense" (or so they think) and free market (as if it exists) will fix it all.

Communists think that if they remove the government and private property all together people will take only what they need and gladly share the rest. Likely.

It's easily enforcible. Communism is an economic system. This law has little to do with economics. The vast majority of people and states support it. So your thesis is the nation is 90% communist. Interesting, because I thought there were more conservatives and moderates than liberals. Yet we're 90% communist. Truly fascinating!

johncuckti, I was just pointing to two different philosophies (communism is more than just an economic system) that are very different, yet share similar illusions. Nothing more. I agree it is enforcible.

Just another reason for law enforcement to abuse the public. Now they'll have Probable Cause to stop you, take your phone, and go through your texts. No warrant, no nothing. Fourth Amendment takes another beating from Mother Government.

The underlying issue on banning texting and driving is that of justice. People who choose to text and drive, then kill themselves doing it, are paying the price for their poor judgement. When, however, they kill others when doing so and are not charged with murder, then justice is not being served. It all comes down to this: it's all right for you to kill yourself through stupidity but it isn't to kill someone else because you acted stupidly. Banning texting and driving should be coupled with punishments that fit the crime.

Sorry, Ampatriots. I thought you were implying anyone who favored this law was a communist. My fault. Communism, however, is just an economic system: Public ownership of the means of production. Because of the human rights abuses by Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc...it has come to mean more historically. That I'll grant you. As for the Fourth Amendment issue, it is a fair point. It would likely end up in the Supreme Court. Would a text about a conspiracy to commit murder, for instance, be admissible, in the process of discerning when somebody sent a text in an effort to ascertain whether he or she was texting when driving? Fair question that has no easy answer. But that's why we have a system of checks and balances. Correct?

As a small business owner and creator of the first Bluetooth activated distracted driving prevention application it is exciting to see more and more discussions and debate regarding distracted driving. The correlation between cell phones and distracted driving accidents is becoming more evident each year. If you are someone that can't resist picking up your cell phone when you hear your favorite rigntone, try DO NOT DISTURB LITE (Bluetooth) for Free. Learn more at safeappllc.com

I think legislation has value in raising public awareness in forums like this one but it will be difficult to solely legislate our way out of this issue. I just read that over 3/4 of teens text daily - many text more than 4000 times a month. New college students no longer have email addresses! They use texting and Facebook - even with their professors. Tweens (ages 9 -12) send texts to each other from their bikes. This text and drive issue is in its infancy and its not going away.

I decided to do something about distracted driving after my three year old daughter was nearly run down right in front of me by a texting driver. Instead of a shackle that locks down phones and alienates the user (especially teens) I built a tool called OTTER that is a simple GPS based, texting auto reply app for smartphones. It also silences call ringtones while driving unless you have a bluetooth enabled. I think if we can empower the individual then change will come to our highways now and not just our laws.

I think legislation has value in raising public awareness in forums like this one but it will be difficult to solely legislate our way out of this issue. I just read that over 3/4 of teens text daily - many text more than 4000 times a month. New college students no longer have email addresses! They use texting and Facebook - even with their professors. Tweens (ages 9 -12) send texts to each other from their bikes. This text and drive issue is in its infancy and its not going away.

I decided to do something about distracted driving after my three year old daughter was nearly run down right in front of me by a texting driver. Instead of a shackle that locks down phones and alienates the user (especially teens) I built a tool called OTTER that is a simple GPS based, texting auto reply app for smartphones. It also silences call ringtones while driving unless you have a bluetooth enabled. I think if we can empower the individual then change will come to our highways now and not just our laws.